The U.S. Department of Agriculture released a grim report Monday which indicates that, during some time in 2008, 17 million households experienced problems in securing enough food to eat. That number is up from 13 million households in 2007. This news is fairly alarming in a nation as rich as the U.S. and speaks rather negatively about the policy response to the recession.
Here are a few charts, showing the results:
This is the central chart: that 14.6% is the 17 million households I mentioned above. That's a pretty significant portion of Americans. This chart provides a historical perspective:
When the recession began in 2007, the percentage of households having trouble getting enough food was a relatively small 11.1%. 2008's percentage was 3.5% higher -- and far higher than the USDA has seen since it began keeping records in 1995.
Given the current economic environment, I'm not sure that an increase should be so surprising. After all, at the end of 2008, the national unemployment rate was 7.2%, compared to just 4.9% at the end of 2007.
Yet, a great deal of government intervention has attempted to provide relief to the unemployed. Benefits have been extended again and again. So it might seem surprising that the percentage of households having trouble securing sufficient food has increased by a larger percentage (3.5%) than the increase in unemployment (2.3%).
This could have something to do with how the USDA survey was taken. More than 7.2% of Americans were unemployed at some point in 2008. Obviously some were unemployed for a time and found new jobs. But that's the phrasing of the USDA survey -- whether your household experienced a food shortage at some point in 2008.
Or maybe it has more to do with underemployment. The national unemployment rate fails to take into account those who were forced to take cuts in hours or pay -- both of which would also affect the amount of money people have to purchase food.
Unfortunately, I'd be shocked if the numbers didn't look even worse for 2009. The national unemployment rate has increased from 7.2% at the end of 2008 to 10.2% in October. Broader measures of underemployment are even scarier.
If unemployment benefits aren't taking care of this problem -- and I don't know how they could be given more workers forced to work part-time or accept less pay -- then the government might consider instead taking more time to address underemployment. For example, one suggestion could to broaden temporary food stamp programs until the economy improves. Any solutions should also take special care to target children: this problem is most serious for them, as they can sometimes suffer development issues if their nutritional needs are not met.
Well, obviously, let's make sure they get good health care for that malnutrition.
Appendix A seems to suggest a pretty wide gap between anxiety and actually having to cut back or skip meals. In fact, the biggest adjustments seem to be in feeding children. The spread between anxiety and feeding children cheap and unbalanced meals is a bit disturbing.
I would disagree with your comment that 11.1% is relatively small in a country where much of the population is overweight or obese.
Right. I didn't mean to suggest 11.1% was acceptable, per say. I just meant to say that it was pretty near the historic norm and relatively low compared to 14.6%, which I found to be a pretty dramatic increase year-over-year.
Food insecurity as used by the USDA, doesn't mean that they "could not afford enough food in 2008" or any other year.
From a response to a previous year's report -
----
"While these numbers sound ominous, it is important to understand what "food insecurity" means. According to the USDA, "food insecurity" is usually a recurring and episodic problem rather than a chronic condition.[2] In 2006, around two-thirds of food insecure households experienced "low food security," meaning that these households managed to avoid any disruption or reduction in food intake throughout the year but were forced by financial pressures to reduce "variety in their diets" or rely on a "few basic foods" at various times in the year.[3] According to the USDA, the remaining one-third of food insecure households (around 4 percent of all households) experienced "very low food security," meaning that at least once in the year their actual intake of food was reduced due to a lack of funds for food purchase.[4] At the extreme, about 1.4 percent of all adults in the U.S. went an entire day without eating at least once during 2006 due to lack of funds for food.[5]"
http://www.heritage.org/research/welfare/wm1701.cfm
So only the very low food security group couldn't afford enough food, and not necessarily for much of the year, it could be they missed a meal or two because they couldn't afford to buy food that one day.
Also from that same source
"Children are generally shielded from food insecurity. Around one child in two hundred experienced "very low food security" and reduced food intake at least one time during 2006. One child in a thousand went a whole day without eating at least once during the year because the family lacked funds for food.[6]
Political advocates proclaim that the USDA reports suggest there is widespread chronic hunger in the U.S.[7] But the USDA clearly and specifically does not identify food insecurity with the more intense condition of "hunger," which it defines as "discomfort, illness, weakness, or pain...caused by prolonged involuntary lack of food."[8]
What is rarely discussed is that the government's own data show that the overwhelming majority of food insecure adults are, like most adult Americans, overweight or obese. Among adult males experiencing food insecurity, fully 70 percent are overweight or obese.[9] Nearly three-quarters of adult women experiencing food insecurity are either overweight or obese, and nearly half (45 percent) are obese. Virtually no food insecure adults are underweight.
Food insecure men are slightly less likely to be overweight or obese than men who are food secure (70 percent compared to 75 percent). But food insecure women are actually more likely to be obese or overweight than are women who are food secure (73 percent compared to 64 percent)."